START FOLLOW-ON NEGOTIATIONS, GENEVA

S E C R E T GENEVA 001201

SIPDIS

DEPT FOR T, VCI AND EUR/PRA
DOE FOR NNSA/NA-24
CIA FOR WINPAC
JCS FOR J5/DDGSA
SECDEF FOR OSD(P)/STRATCAP
NAVY FOR CNO-N5JA AND DIRSSP
AIRFORCE FOR HQ USAF/ASX AND ASXP
DTRA FOR OP-OS OP-OSA AND DIRECTOR
NSC FOR LOOK
DIA FOR LEA

E.O. 12958: DECL: 12/19/2019
TAGS: KACT MARR PARM PREL RS US START
SUBJECT: START FOLLOW-ON NEGOTIATIONS, GENEVA
(SFO-GVA-VII): (U) NOTIFICATIONS WORKING GROUP, DECEMBER
10, 2009

REF: GENEVA 1189 (SFO-GVA-VII-097)

Classified By: A/S Rose E. Gottemoeller, United States
START Negotiator. Reasons: 1.4(b) and (d).


1. (U) This is SFO-GVA-VII-121.


2. (U) Meeting Date: December 10, 2009
Time: 3:30 P.M. - 5:00 P.M.
Place: U.S. Mission, Geneva

--------------
SUMMARY
--------------


3. (S) During a meeting of the Notifications Working Group,
held at the U.S. Mission on December 10, the sides discussed
notifications that could be removed or combined. Mr. Siemon
and Mr. Smirnov discussed the U.S.-proposed joint draft text
for Section I, General Provisions, and tentatively agreed on
that text. The sides also discussed Section V and Conversion
or Elimination Notifications, in detail. The remaining
substantive difference for Section V concerned where
information regarding notifications of a change in database
information would be placed in the text. The meeting closed
with a discussion of the remaining sections of the document
(Sections II, III, IV, VI and VII) in addition to the agenda
for a future meeting. End Summary.


4. (U) SUBJECT SUMMARY: Removing Formats; Sections I -
General Provisions; Section V - Conversion or Elimination;
and The Future.

--------------
REMOVING FORMATS
--------------


5. (S) Siemon began the meeting by stating the U.S.
delegation had agreed to remove and combine additional
notifications from the U.S.-proposed Part Four to the
Protocol, Notifications. He stated START Format 10,
Notification of Planned Numbers of Nuclear Warheads on
Deployed Systems, START Format 11, Notification of Planned
Aggregate Numbers, START Format 12, Notification of Expected
Numbers of Deployed Arms in Excess of Planned Numbers, and
START Format 15, Notification of Transfer of Items to and
From a Third State, could be captured under a Format 3
(change in Database Information) in the case of 10, 11, and
12, and in the case of Format 15, could be captured under a
generic "additional messages" notification. Smirnov noted
that the Russian proposal was not to eliminate Format 15 but
to include that data transfer in a more common format.
Siemon stated the United States would review that proposal.


6. (S) Siemon addressed Russia's previous proposal to remove
Format 68 (Reftel),Notification of Annual Schedule for
Conversion and Elimination, by stating that the U.S. side was
not prepared to remove this notification at this time. He
stated it was important for proper planning of resources and
it could be very useful depending on the outcome of the
inspection quota discussion. Smirnov opined that information
received on an annual basis was not accurate and that a
Notification of Intent to Eliminate or Convert, transmitted


30 days prior to the start of elimination procedures, would
provide enough time for any necessary planning. Siemon
stated he would engage the U.S. delegation again regarding
this issue.

--------------
SECTION I - GENERAL PROVISIONS
--------------


7. (S) Siemon opened discussion on Section I by noting that
three of the four paragraphs in the new U.S.-proposed joint
draft text were based on Russian-proposed text.

Begin text:


1. The Parties hereby agree upon provisions that establish
the procedures for, and the content of, the notifications
provided for in Article VIII of the Treaty.


2. A data base pertaining to the obligations under this
Treaty is set forth in Part Two of the Protocol to the
Treaty, in which data with respect to items subject to the
limitations provided for in this Treaty are listed according
to categories of data.


3. Each Party shall provide to the other party notifications
concerning: 1) data contained in Part Two of the Protocol to
the Treaty and other agreed categories of data; 2) movement
of items subject to the treaty; 3) flight tests and
telemetric information of ICBMs or SLBMs; 4) conversion or
elimination of items and facilities and removal from
accountability of items and facilities; 5) Inspections and
Exhibitions; and 6) additional messages relating to the
Treaty.


4. If a time is to be specified in a notification provided
pursuant to this Part, that time shall be expressed in
Greenwich Mean Time. If a date is to be specified in a
notification, that date shall be specified as the 24 hour
period that corresponds to the date in local time, expressed
in Greenwich Mean Time.

End text.

Smirnov immediately agreed with the paragraphs. Siemon
stated the fourth paragraph was a statement providing the
reader an understanding of what would be discussed in the
document and in what order. Smirnov asked whether the
intention was simply to list the sections in this paragraph,
and Siemon replied that was the intention with the added hope
of keeping consistency with other documents. Smirnov agreed
in principle and stated the Russian side would review the new
paragraph in detail.


8. (S) Siemon noted that the U.S. side would provide a joint
draft text, in both Russian and English, for Section II,
Notifications Concerning Data with Respect to Limitations
Provided for in the treaty, prior to the next meeting. He
stressed that it was important to provide more clarity,
especially with the use of Format 3, Change in Database
Information. Added clarity would allow an easy transition
from this text to the specific formats in the Notifications
Annex to the Protocol. He provided a rough idea of what the


Russian side could expect to see in that document and added
he hoped to have a joint draft text to the Russian side by
Friday afternoon.

--------------
SECTION V - CONVERSION OR ELIMINATION
--------------


9. (S) Siemon shifted the discussion to Section V,
Conversion or Elimination, of the new U.S.-proposed joint
draft text. Smirnov reviewed the text briefly and stated the
Russian side had no concerns with sub-paragraphs 1(a) and
1(b) related to Notifications of Intent and Notifications of
Initiation. He agreed those were both in the
Russian-proposed text and noted only minor differences in the
language. He stated that the Russian side was now willing to
accept the U.S. proposal in sub-paragraph 1(c),to include a
notification for "Readiness to Inspect." He noted the
previous Russian proposal was to include such data in a
Format 3, Change in Database Data.


10. (S) Smirnov questioned the use of a notification
following the completion of conversion or elimination
activities in the U.S.-proposed text. LT Sicks replied that
the notification would be a Format 3 as proposed by the
Russian side. Smirnov then stated that paragraph 2, which
required a notification of change in database information in
the case of removal by other means (i.e., accidental loss,
disablement, etc.),was already covered in Section II of the
text. Sicks replied that the Russian-proposed text provided
only a note referencing the requirement and that more
specificity and clarity was needed. Smirnov agreed but noted
that the Russian side wanted to minimize the number of
required notification formats used. He stated the
notifications in paragraph 2 should all use a Format 3
notification. Siemon reiterated that Sicks' earlier point
concerning clarity was important and that both the U.S.
Senate ratifiers and future implementers on both sides needed
to understand what specific notifications were covered under
Format 3. Siemon told Smirnov that both sides were in
agreement and that the real issue was one of format, not
substance.

--------------
THE FUTURE
--------------


11. (S) Siemon provided assurance of U.S. flexibility
regarding the format and location of items in the text, and
he reiterated that clarity was more important than format
location. Smirnov then proposed to focus on Section III,
Notifications Concerning Movement of Items, Section IV,
Notifications Concerning Flight Tests, and Section VII,
Notifications of "Additional Messages" in the next meeting.
(Begin comment: Section VII would include all notifications
not specifically covered under Sections II through VI. End
comment.) Both he and Col Petrov opined Section VI,
Notifications Concerning Inspections and Exhibitions, would
be extremely difficult and recommended addressing it after
the Inspection Protocol Working Group (IPWG) had finalized
more text. Siemon agreed.


12. (S) Siemon asked Smirnov to deliver the U.S.-proposed


definition of "Declared Data" to ADM Kuznetsov, and
recommended discussing it at the next Definitions Subgroup
meeting. On notifications, Siemon noted the United States
would be prepared to discuss Section II, Section III, and
Section IV during the next working group meeting. He stated
there was a significant amount of bracketed text in Section
VII and major issues would need to be resolved before
progress could be made on that section. Siemon did, however,
agree to the need for a free text "catch-all" format that
would be located in Section VII. Smirnov stated he
understood and would be ready to meet again Saturday.


13. (U) Documents provided:

- UNITED STATES:

-- U.S.-Proposed Joint Draft Text, Sections I and V of
Part Four of the Protocol to the Treaty, dated December 10,
2009; and

-- U.S.-Proposed text for the Definition of "Declared
Data," dated December 10, 2009.


14. (U) Participants:

UNITED STATES

Mr. Siemon
Mr. Dwyer
LT Sicks
Mr. French (Int)

RUSSIA

Mr. Smirnov
Col Petrov
Mr. Voloskov
Ms. Komshilova (Int)


15. (U) Gottemoeller sends.
GRIFFITHS